Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017
16.20. Before concluding the discussion, this Court feels the need to
highlight that there are some gaps in the case set up by the plaintiff as
well. Firstly, he has not disclosed anything about the source of
Rs.7,50,000/-, the loan in question advanced by him in cash to the
defendant especially in view of the fact that he himself admitted that
he did not disclose the loan transaction in question in his income-tax
return. Secondly, plaintiff deposed in his cross examination that the
defendant approached him for the first time for the loan in question on
02.06.2015 and on that very day, he advanced the loan to him, prima
facie appears unconscionable. Thirdly, the plaintiff has stated in his
cross examination that the undertaking-cum-receipt Ex.PW-1/1 was
Suresh Kumar Vs. Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar Page: 15/18
not notorised in his presence as the defendant got it done later on.